Interesting in an " Oh. I'm getting mugged by a mugger with a gun. I hope he doesn't shoot me after I give all my stuff." kind of way or the Interesting in a Look a strange bug let's see what the strange bug does!" kind of way?Most of us who don't depend on a public paycheck find him interesting in the first way. Anybody who finds him interesting in the second way is kind of a douche.

The larger Obama story is interesting. Part of what makes it interesting is that Obama the man seems totally ordinary and uninteresting. That is, part of what makes the obama story so interesting is the fact that there is an Obama story at all.

I can see how Obama might be interesting- but wouldn't Bill Clinton be more interesting, by that standard? I'd argue that Clinton's strengths and weaknesses make him a far more interesting character than Obama.

What the hell are you talking about? What has the man ever done that's interesting? He's done nothing in his life other than get elected President, which was really not his doing either. He could have lived his entire life in his Mom's cellar except for the part where people hire him for jobs that he's entirely unqualified for.

His entire thing is being a "clean and articulate" Black man that other people could use like a "Save the Whales" sticker on their Prius.

He's a place holder, a symbol, and nothing more. Never fought other men, faced death, or saved a life. Never climbed a mountain, discovered anything or toiled hard and long to achieve something great. Never sacrificed, except for those few moments when he had to listen to someone else talk about themselves. In reality, he's just a famous, slacker. Grow up.

Nixon was very interesting. Almost Shakespearian. Lots of good movies made with him as a character: Nixon, Dick, Secret Honor, All the President's Men, The Killing Fields, The Parallax View, The Ice Storm, Forrest Gump, The Buena Vista Social Club, Point Break, Maid in Manhattan, Tricia's Wedding, Sleeper, Missing, The Big Lebowski, Shampoo, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. [copied the list from Slate when I went searching for some examples beyond my favorites].

Want to bet that a comparable list will be made about Obama? I'd assume you want odds.

The poor guy has worked himself silly trying to control that image with very few flaws that are not covered over with a smooth smile and a transition into one of the educated liberal's favorite Nehustans. He has Chris Matthews in a permanent restless leg syndrome.

But remember the con is still setting fires at the north end of town so the gang can rob the banks at the south end of town.

Romney is actually really interesting when you learn about him. He just doesn't toot his own horn all that much. I'll take Romney shutting down his investment bank and asking staffers to help search for a missing daughter trumps anything Obama ever did in terms of interest or coolness.

I am suprised that anyone finds O interesting. Nothing the man has said or done since about 2007 has suprised me in the least. Maybe the interesting thing is your and others perception of him? That actually is somewhat interesting - he was maybe the first tabula rosa candidates I know of, upon which whatever post-racial, post-partisan, post-modern aspirations anyone felt could be written.

As for myself, I sided with his former pastor Wright who said "He's a politician, doing what politicians do." Which is exactly what he is - he makes Jim Hacker look like Winston Churchill.

@MadisonMan--I did include the rest of the quote it at first, but it seemed unnecessary, b/c I haven't encountered anyone (except Althouse) who "relates to" Obama in a manner that incorporates any degree of fascination.

I have met plenty of people who use him as a blank screen upon which they project their own idiosyncratic beliefs, though.

"He is the most interesting character I've seen emerge in my lifetime, perhaps."

I'm not normally critical of the Professor here, but this statement flabbergasts me. Obama is interesting? How so? Remove race, and he's a standard Chicago machine politician.

I wonder how much of this characteristic is not any intrinsic property of being "interesting", but rather projection? Obama is almost always analyzed through either the lens of conservative views on liberalism or liberal views on what a US President from their party should be and do. Even issues that are specificaly about Obama - the long refuted "Birther" issue, the latest "Man Eats Dog" trivia - gets talked about through those very same channels. I've seen so little discussion about him that I'm astounded that anyone can claim to find him interesting or analyzable on his own characteristics.

The sad part is that, an analysis I made during the election - the fact that he's nothing more than a screen for everyone else to project their own visions on - still stands true today. So any claim that he's interesting catches my attention. I'm immediately of the opinion that this characteristic is less about him, and more about the narratives around him. What else is there that could even remotely be considered "interesting"? It's certainly not the man himself.

FDR was interesting. So was LBJ and Nixon. Obama, more contrived than actually interesting. Interesting presidents are great for conversation and for historical books and novels. But boring is far batter for the actual business of governing.

Nixon was also interesting. Gary Willis called his biography of Nixon, "Nixon Agonistes."

No one would have written "[Gerald Ford] Agonisted," or even "Reagan Agonistes." Perhaps these politicians' lives had some drama, but not the sort of intense, personal struggle that goes with "agonistes."

So, perhaps Althouse means Obama is "interesting" in the sense of "Obama agonistes"?

While there may be a heroic struggle inside Obama regarding race and his origins, many of us just see him as a common (if unusually bright) dishonest Chicago politician.

Win or lose this 2012 election, Mr Obama presidency will be fodder for sociologists and political scientists for the next hundred years. All of which can be juxaposed by BT Barnum's aphorism about suckers born every minute (I think he said that, but I could be making it up)

I've always said that BHO is John Edwards-lite (i.e a left-leaning, smooth talker with a pretty face and little to show by way of accomplishment). The only reason he was noticed at all and got anywhere in 2008 was because of his skin color. To reuse a phrase, if he was white he would have been just another one of a dime a dozen. You'll notice nobody felt compelled to vote for John Edwards out of guilt - and thus he went nowhere.

"He is the most interesting character I've seen emerge in my lifetime, perhaps."

The more I think about it, the more I just don't see it. He's the topic of much discussion; He's the President! He invokes strong passions because the country's a mess and 1/2 of us think we have an incompetent running the show. He garners intense support because the other 1/2 feel the need to validate their electoral choice.

But unless you argue that incompetent = interesting, I just don't see it.

Both Obama and Romney are interesting. But both are sort of predictable.

Obama's doing the third-way/ mixed-race stuff that was pretty typical of the late 80s early 90s in this book. Seen it so many times before blah blah I'm an Oreo oh no I have to agonize over identity and nationality. He's your typical highly educated, relatively intelligent, perfectionist, meritocracy aspirational middle class type. He can read situations well and is a better politician then Romney.

Romney - He's the must seem friendly/bland type. Wants power and authority. Likes order and hierarchy. Typical western executive from the 70s and 80s. He grew up elite and was jacked into the system--it's hurting his ability to be a good politician. He's never had to pander and is used to being in charge in a corporate environment.

When you think about it, a lot of our recent presidents (and even major party candidates) are pretty interesting (especially if you count the filthy rich and/or well connected (Stevenson, Kennedy, Bush, Bush, Gore, Romney) as interesting.) By my reckoning, the only relatively normal people to get one of the two big nominations for president since WWII are Truman, McGovern, Ford, and Carter. Admittedly, NO ONE who wakes up one day and decides to run for president is normal. Even the "normal" list includes someone who was a key player on two undefeated national champ football teams and someone wh flew 35 B-24 missions over Germany.

Some "struggles," with people like Ann so gosh darned fascinated by him. It would be so much easier if they would all line up, give the guy a blow job, and leave the rest of us out of it, but noooo! We'll also have to listen to this bullshit while they wait their turn. It's maddening.

But I agree with you about Romney - he's a member of a cult and Ann sees nothing interesting. That's because she accepts the superficial surface they project, brilliant inquisitive mind that she is, while I can go on for YEARS about how fucking bizarre he and his cult are. I mean, really - excuse me? Something's wrong with this picture, or Ann's glasses, or,...something.

Do you remember AFTER Obama's election, when Ann said "The entire plan to bring Obama into office depended on the glorification of the man, whose actual experience was so bizarrely limited that it took some nerve to claim to be ready. Magic was required. The cult grew up not as he held power and needed to respond to a crisis. The cult was the campaign to bring him into power. It depended on our projecting all sorts of hopes and dreams onto him, and he knew it. Inside, he may have felt embarrassed by the whole enterprise, but he'd figured out that it could work, and he was right."?

These are the words of someone PROUD to be a sucker. A member of the cult. Listen to her:

Now, I think this worked because he really is a solid, normal person who remained grounded in the middle of all this craziness.

I ask you, what "solid, normal person" starts a cult? Is a member of a cult? Is up all night with fucking Oprah while his wife lays in bed next to him, fuming? Ann finally ended THAT bullshit with these words:

I've read quite enough. Now look, rednecks, if you are going to denigrate the president of the United States by using coinage then had just get your coinages straight and make up your mind if he a two bit politician, twenty-five cents each, see bit money, or is he a dime a dozen, .8333 cents each? There is a big difference, and for Pete's sake don't use both coinages for the same politician in the same sentence.

Obama is interestingn in the way of the Chinese curse 'May you live in interesting times'. Romney is boring in the way you like boring because you don't enjoy having to scavenge for food in garbage dumps.

Interesting to a lefty academic. A black guy whose subjects and verbs agree! A great speechifier using black preacher cadence without the God part! Harvard! Columbia!

And an insurance policy to boot: half white. Kansas!

Well, he isnt interesting. He is just another one of the hustler brothers who has hustled the nation using the language of guilt and academic bullshit to pull it off. And like most hustlers he had you asking questions about yourself and not about him.

Ah, all the interesting things about Obama, are reasons not to vote for him, his paucity of achievement, his total ignorance of what has worked in the last 30 years of policy, his left wing associations,

Bob_R said...Nixon was very interesting. Almost Shakespearian. Lots of good movies made with him as a character: Nixon, Dick, Secret Honor, All the President's Men, The Killing Fields, The Parallax View, The Ice Storm, Forrest Gump, The Buena Vista Social Club, Point Break, Maid in Manhattan, Tricia's Wedding, Sleeper, Missing, The Big Lebowski, Shampoo, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. [copied the list from Slate when I went searching for some examples beyond my favorites].

Want to bet that a comparable list will be made about Obama? I'd assume you want odds.

----------------------TDR was interesting. FDR as well. Same with JFK, LBJ, Clinton, and Reagan. All consequential men deserving of great biographies and a continuing presence in our culture and lore.Nixon is that special case of a great man with great flaws. LBJ was worse, perhaps FDR...but they avoided the Great Fall. As the decades go by, Nixon will be treated better by historians in light of his great, mostly wise, consequential acts.

Eisenhower and HW Bush were dull, but no one can deny their achievements.

Leaving Ford, Carter, Dubya, and Obama as the runts of the litter. No movies. Each lucky if they have any fans or biographers decades out.

The only thing marginally interesting about this guy are two sets of unsealed divorce records in Illinois. If it weren't for those, and the machinations behind their release into the media domain, most of us wouldn't even know who Barack Obama is.

Perhaps those "fascinated" by Obama are simply "fascinated" by their own "fascination." IOW, it's all about them, the perfect mirror to delve into themselves some more. The subtlety! The stability! The stability of the mind that recognizes such subtlety! The subtlety of the mind that recognizes such stability! In the midst of CHAOS and CULTISHNESS NO LESS!

Sorry, but.... boomers. I gotta say the youth make less excuses for themselves on this count. The ex-swooners may or may not vote for him again, but I don't hear all the reflective rationalizing of their former stance.

Unless he has himself to talk about he is really a boring person.But the personas people envelope him with is fascinating.There is nothing there except an almost pathological ability to sense what people want to see and then becoming that person.A Zelig for the new century.What compelled you, Ann, to entrust your vote to him?

Barf. Who don't I find more interesting than Obama. Other than being an elitist, left-wing con man, which I find boring, he's done almost nothing himself.

For beginners, I find Thomas Massie infinitely more interesting than Obama. And, he's genuinely smart. I go to the YMCA and talk with people I find more interesting than Obama. The grocery clerk is more interesting.

"The only thing marginally interesting about this guy are two sets of unsealed divorce records in Illinois. If it weren't for those, and the machinations behind their release into the media domain, most of us wouldn't even know who Barack Obama is."

Seven of Nine is responsible for the 21st Century bankruptcy of the former United States of America?

I find reading through her analysis of this con man boring. He has not done anything to deserve that kind of attention, cheating his way to presidency may be close. But he had a lot of help there too. May be this is another way Althouse rationalizes her vote for Obama.

Both Romney and Obama are bland. Obama's blandness is viewed as reassuring. In a black man, blandness is like wearing glasses or a sweater vest. It shows a willingness to merge with bourgeoise white culture. Blandness is almost an accomplishment... Romney's blandness is boring. In a Mormon, blandness is the default affect. Mormons are not known for their colorful personalities......Romney is fully homogenized. He doesn't seem to have any divided feelings or loyalties. His blandness is bone deep. Obama, on the other hand, seems self conscious and aware of all sorts of feelings that for most of us are reflexive. I don't know if he's the most interesting, but he's certainly the most introspective of recent Presidents. His blandness is a kind of mask.

Would Romney have been more interesting to you if a ghostwriter had made up composites about his boarding school pranks, life with Ann and the boys and don't forget dog Seamus and so on. Yeah, he would have had to make up a lot of stuff. You think you know Romney but you don't. You think you know Obama because he(or someone else) wrote some fiction of a life story. You don't know anything. All you have done is fall for the propaganda.

What is interesting is that Obama and Bill Ayers pretend not knowing each other except as "guys in the neighborhood." Now, we have two people stating they know that Bill Ayers' parents paid Obama's tuition at Columbia, and we know they had offices on the same floor of a building in S. Chicago during his "community organizer" years. You put that together with the TV interviews with the old Weatherman crew that has shown on PBS several times and presumably are still available from PBS, then you really have something "interesting" to ponder.

As a psychological study Zero is a goddamn goldmine. We have here the ultimate character from a Dr. Suess book, in which everyone that wants to can write themselves into Zeros shoes, much like the kids that read Dr. Suess picture themselves as the kids in the books.

A tabla rasa writ larger than life itself by dint of his presidency. Those mature enough to see past the mirror image are bored with Zero. Those mature enough to just see that other people are just seeing themselves are frustrated with the childishness, and those who are egocentric in their development see only themselves reflected back.

I was frustrated by the people who couldn't see past the image of themselves in Zero too, for a long time. But I've seen him for what he is for a few months...he's just a man, with some intelligence, but a lot of Daddy issues. He's afraid to stand up to other world leaders for fear that they will leave him like his father, and eventually his mother did. He comes across as aloof because he is trying to keep from being hurt. A very fragile psyche. Because of his childhood bouncing around from society to society, he learned to become a chameleon, a Zelig like the Woody Allen character. That's who and what he is. As I stated in an earlier post, I kinda feel sorry for him. He is the useful idiot the left has been looking, and praying for since Stalins' day.

People need to stop worrying about who is or isn't going to vote for him. Too many people see the emperor has no clothes. Those who see the fine suit, they'll always see the fine suit until they become more mature. You can't rush the process, it is what it is.

I think the professor has edged me out in that she likes studying the reactions Zero brings out in people, not so much Zero himself. Look, I just noticed, I demean him by calling him Zero. A flaw in me, not him.(TY for that insight prof.)

Obama is what he is, what we all are, a flawed man trying to make his way through the world, and raise his family. How he does that may be outrageous to us, but I no longer have a doubt that he is doing as he sees fit. Whether the country agrees with his assessment is what is important. I prefer to believe that while there are many foolish enough to vote for his bad policies, I don't think enough will.

Getting upset about it will have no affect on the outcome though.

Let me amend that last thought. If a lot of people are like me, pushing them only gets you pushed back...let's try a little more reason, and a lot less vitriole...we'll have more success I wager.

One of the rare times I completely disagree with Althouse's premises. Not only do I not find him fascinating, to me he's tedious. I've known a dozen people just like him, only they're all self hating white liberals. He's a SWPL black guy. He's the black guy white liberals wish they were. If it were possible to shed your whiteness like an old coat and become black, there would be a million Obamas.

ChipS. You're definitely onto it here:I have met plenty of people who use him as a blank screen upon which they project their own idiosyncratic beliefs, though.

Ann, and the libs, project onto O like crazy. He IS the blank slate. That's why he was the ideal lefty candidate. Everyman! Bingo! Everyone gets a prize! Free stuff for all! And so it goes on. We're doomed. *sigh*

This was a sign held by a protestor outside Obama's Chicago HQ, in a crowd of anti-NATO types. Two things instantly come to mind. 1) this person does not believe the immensely incorrect axiom "Violence never solved anything" and 2) this person has never had children.

Provided that you're a normal, caring parent that doesn't yell about everything all the time, screaming for quiet works very well, but you've got to come from the diaphragm. You have to make the house shake.

If I'm facinated about anything; it's what is claimed for and about him with little or no evidence. He floats through life leaving almost no residual evidence of his passing, and yet keeps getting wafted up to the next rung of the ladder showing little or no effort, much less results.

Smartest President ever with no accademic transcripts or glowing faculty rememberances. An editor of the Harvard Law Review with seemingly no articles of his own. A community organizer with no example of a community successully organized. A state senator whose papers while in office have yet to be released. A constituional law "professor," at the U of Chicago no less, with no academic writings, and apparantly no former students to vouch for his briliance. A US senator who voted present more often than not and has no legislative accomplishments worthy of note. A gifted speaker who stumbles without his teleprompter. A President whose major legislative accomplihments were farmed out to the democratic leadership and show little presidential direction. A man who finds himself so interesting that the only paper trail he's left behind are two(!) autobiographies.

So what's interesting to me is not Obama, but the long history of others willing perhaps eager to promote him. To me he is identical to the proverbial token figurehead that a company uses to qualify for minority set-asides.

It just hit me, Obama would be perfect for Secretary of State. No real power, able to blend in into any society, no real big ideas of his own(just doing what others tell him), inoffensive, likes to go to exotic locales. I always did prefer Hillary for Pres.(of the 2)

"Lying is interesting. There's so much more to delve into that with someone who tells a straight story."

- Ann Althouse

"It's almost like a cosmic joke to fall in love with someone who's living a big lie."

- Reille Hunter

I want a star on the fridge of life, Goddamnit,...

Creack - you've redeemed yourself in my eyes.

Lying isn't interesting. If it was my ex-wife would be the most interesting person in the world. What's interesting is being able to teach me something, show me something new, have a new idea, create something. Obama's has none of that, has done none of that.

His every statement is predictable, his every idea stale. I can't imagine spending the weekend with him and enjoying it. Imagine talking with GHW Bush about flying bombers in WWII and crashing in the ocean, about all the stuff he did after the war. Bill Clinton has plenty of life and ideas. For better or for worse, he's a scintillating conversationalist. Obama's as boring and dreary as a winter day in early March when you're hoping for the change of seasons to come early.

Forgot the UN(or the Un, according to IDIOCRACY)...perfect. We could disown him completely then. Future democrats could visit the "time masheen" and see how Obama saved the world from Charlie Chaplin, and his Nazi dinosaurs.

The Democratic Underground is worried that the Sixth Army may not be able to take Stalingrad: “Walker up by 9-points in new WI Recall poll, WI Dems upset with DNC”. Wisconsin was where the Unions were going to demonstrate their invincible power. Maybe that’s not going to happen.

This fascination with the President would have been a lot more useful four years ago.

It doesn't matter now, because we know how Obama governs.

All the e-ink spilled over "vetting" Obama is a waste of time. It's like the liberals' fascination with George W. Bush's past even after he'd been reelected. Who cares?

What's in Obama's autobiographies is what he wanted to write in them at the time, and he wrote what was convenient at the time. That's all. It has little or nothing to do with what is useful to him or to us in the present.

I'm not terribly interested about what goes on inside people's heads. I care what they do. Obama has done a lot, more than enough for us to decide who to vote for. Delving into other people's psyches does more to reveal our own bias than any insight gained into our target's.

The most interesting character you've seen emerge in your lifetime? Geesh, that's just really sad.

Quick, pick one of the following people to be trapped in an elevator with for one hour, just you and this other person, you can chat about whatever while you wait to be rescued, ask whatever you want, try to draw the person out, see what you can learn: Axl Rose, Tim Tebow, Stephen King, David Petraeus, Queen Elizabeth or President Obama.

And you'd pick Obama? He's not even the most interesting President we've had in your lifetime. Which hands down has to be Bill Clinton.

I don't even think he's the most interesting person with the last name Obama. Michelle is far more intriguing.